Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections: 4% Liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel

Ninel Gregori, Matthew J. Weiss, Raquel Goldhardt, Joyce C. Schiffman, Edgardo Vega, Cherrie Ann Mattis, Wei Shi, Linda Kelley, Vilma Hernandez, William J Feuer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare same-day and next-day pain control and safety of two anesthetic techniques utilizing 4% liquid lidocaine applied with sterile cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel for intravitreal injections. Main outcome measures were: discomfort during anesthetic preparation and needle penetration, 1 and 24 h after injection. Methods: Patients were randomized to alternate anesthetic method at two consecutive injections in one eye or in different eyes on the same day if requiring bilateral injections. Overall satisfaction, corneal staining, and subconjunctival hemorrhage (SCH) were compared. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Both methods resulted in similar mild discomfort during anesthetic preparation, 1 and 24 h later. The gel resulted in slightly higher discomfort during needle penetration (p = 0.026). Patients were satisfied with both techniques (p = 0.91), however, 52% patients preferred gel, 33% were indifferent, and 15% preferred cotton swabs (p = 0.002). There were significantly less corneal staining (p = 0.001) and SCH (p = 0.004) after the gel. Conclusion: Both techniques are equally effective and yield mild discomfort scores during the procedure and the next day. The gel method results in significantly less ocular surface irritation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)735-741
Number of pages7
JournalExpert Opinion on Drug Delivery
Volume9
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2012

Fingerprint

Intravitreal Injections
Lidocaine
Anesthetics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Gels
Injections
Needles
Staining and Labeling
Hemorrhage
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety
Pain

Keywords

  • anesthesia
  • discomfort
  • intravitreal injection
  • lidocaine
  • lidocaine gel
  • pain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmaceutical Science

Cite this

Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections : 4% Liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel. / Gregori, Ninel; Weiss, Matthew J.; Goldhardt, Raquel; Schiffman, Joyce C.; Vega, Edgardo; Mattis, Cherrie Ann; Shi, Wei; Kelley, Linda; Hernandez, Vilma; Feuer, William J.

In: Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 7, 01.07.2012, p. 735-741.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gregori, Ninel ; Weiss, Matthew J. ; Goldhardt, Raquel ; Schiffman, Joyce C. ; Vega, Edgardo ; Mattis, Cherrie Ann ; Shi, Wei ; Kelley, Linda ; Hernandez, Vilma ; Feuer, William J. / Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections : 4% Liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel. In: Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery. 2012 ; Vol. 9, No. 7. pp. 735-741.
@article{da0f86a5558649289070a0a15695d573,
title = "Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections: 4{\%} Liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5{\%} lidocaine gel",
abstract = "Objective: To compare same-day and next-day pain control and safety of two anesthetic techniques utilizing 4{\%} liquid lidocaine applied with sterile cotton swabs versus 3.5{\%} lidocaine gel for intravitreal injections. Main outcome measures were: discomfort during anesthetic preparation and needle penetration, 1 and 24 h after injection. Methods: Patients were randomized to alternate anesthetic method at two consecutive injections in one eye or in different eyes on the same day if requiring bilateral injections. Overall satisfaction, corneal staining, and subconjunctival hemorrhage (SCH) were compared. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Both methods resulted in similar mild discomfort during anesthetic preparation, 1 and 24 h later. The gel resulted in slightly higher discomfort during needle penetration (p = 0.026). Patients were satisfied with both techniques (p = 0.91), however, 52{\%} patients preferred gel, 33{\%} were indifferent, and 15{\%} preferred cotton swabs (p = 0.002). There were significantly less corneal staining (p = 0.001) and SCH (p = 0.004) after the gel. Conclusion: Both techniques are equally effective and yield mild discomfort scores during the procedure and the next day. The gel method results in significantly less ocular surface irritation.",
keywords = "anesthesia, discomfort, intravitreal injection, lidocaine, lidocaine gel, pain",
author = "Ninel Gregori and Weiss, {Matthew J.} and Raquel Goldhardt and Schiffman, {Joyce C.} and Edgardo Vega and Mattis, {Cherrie Ann} and Wei Shi and Linda Kelley and Vilma Hernandez and Feuer, {William J}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1517/17425247.2012.685155",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "735--741",
journal = "Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery",
issn = "1742-5247",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized clinical trial of two anesthetic techniques for intravitreal injections

T2 - 4% Liquid lidocaine on cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel

AU - Gregori, Ninel

AU - Weiss, Matthew J.

AU - Goldhardt, Raquel

AU - Schiffman, Joyce C.

AU - Vega, Edgardo

AU - Mattis, Cherrie Ann

AU - Shi, Wei

AU - Kelley, Linda

AU - Hernandez, Vilma

AU - Feuer, William J

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Objective: To compare same-day and next-day pain control and safety of two anesthetic techniques utilizing 4% liquid lidocaine applied with sterile cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel for intravitreal injections. Main outcome measures were: discomfort during anesthetic preparation and needle penetration, 1 and 24 h after injection. Methods: Patients were randomized to alternate anesthetic method at two consecutive injections in one eye or in different eyes on the same day if requiring bilateral injections. Overall satisfaction, corneal staining, and subconjunctival hemorrhage (SCH) were compared. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Both methods resulted in similar mild discomfort during anesthetic preparation, 1 and 24 h later. The gel resulted in slightly higher discomfort during needle penetration (p = 0.026). Patients were satisfied with both techniques (p = 0.91), however, 52% patients preferred gel, 33% were indifferent, and 15% preferred cotton swabs (p = 0.002). There were significantly less corneal staining (p = 0.001) and SCH (p = 0.004) after the gel. Conclusion: Both techniques are equally effective and yield mild discomfort scores during the procedure and the next day. The gel method results in significantly less ocular surface irritation.

AB - Objective: To compare same-day and next-day pain control and safety of two anesthetic techniques utilizing 4% liquid lidocaine applied with sterile cotton swabs versus 3.5% lidocaine gel for intravitreal injections. Main outcome measures were: discomfort during anesthetic preparation and needle penetration, 1 and 24 h after injection. Methods: Patients were randomized to alternate anesthetic method at two consecutive injections in one eye or in different eyes on the same day if requiring bilateral injections. Overall satisfaction, corneal staining, and subconjunctival hemorrhage (SCH) were compared. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Both methods resulted in similar mild discomfort during anesthetic preparation, 1 and 24 h later. The gel resulted in slightly higher discomfort during needle penetration (p = 0.026). Patients were satisfied with both techniques (p = 0.91), however, 52% patients preferred gel, 33% were indifferent, and 15% preferred cotton swabs (p = 0.002). There were significantly less corneal staining (p = 0.001) and SCH (p = 0.004) after the gel. Conclusion: Both techniques are equally effective and yield mild discomfort scores during the procedure and the next day. The gel method results in significantly less ocular surface irritation.

KW - anesthesia

KW - discomfort

KW - intravitreal injection

KW - lidocaine

KW - lidocaine gel

KW - pain

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862749190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862749190&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1517/17425247.2012.685155

DO - 10.1517/17425247.2012.685155

M3 - Article

C2 - 22554019

AN - SCOPUS:84862749190

VL - 9

SP - 735

EP - 741

JO - Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery

JF - Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery

SN - 1742-5247

IS - 7

ER -